You're probably right about it being a dry-cleaning place, but dry cleaning isn't something that would have come to mind

The description for Category:Laundromat read "Laundromats, launderettes or laundrettes are commercial laundries where the customer can operate the machines". So-and-so Cleaners doesn't sound like a place with customer-operated machines.

I'm not seeing any other laundry-related categories that would be applicable to buildings, except for stuff created after I uploaded it with Category:Industrial laundry. Thanks for letting me know, as I'll fix it, but I don't think I could have done any better in 2009. Nyttend (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Next time, there's also this one more step. - Jmabel ! talk 19:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Usually a bot fills that in, but I do not know how often it is run. If one is filled and the other empty the bot migrates it to fill the field. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It would be nice if Wikisource was as cooperative. My last interaction had an editor delete what I was adding mid-transcribing it, and they do not allow links back to Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't really show you more than that without undeleting, which doesn't seem worth the effort unless you really want me to. And I'm unaware of any particular way to get a history of what might once have been in the category. - Jmabel ! talk 06:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I've seen instances where you can get histories of articles and categories, and instance where you can, even without restoration. I just looked up my history from that time, and I don't even see my name attached to either category. As for restoring this, don't even bother. ----DanTD (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Hello Jmabel, could you have have a look at your reversion here? I was trying to find a comment that appears on my watchlist but on VP is missing. Thanks. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 02:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel,

When you removed a lot of stuff from VP, you also removed a request from a :EN: arbiter to delete a potntially libellous image. Fortunately I had already initiated the delete. Will you please reinstate stuff that should not have been removed. Martinvl (talk) 09:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Nice to meet you. First, thank you for your contribution. Please check my feedback on the photos you uploaded.File:Korean_acorn_jellies.jpg I read the first description and current description too. I can't convinced that but your photos looks like '다식 ko:다식, en:Dasik, Gooogle Image Search'. Please check it out. If this is the correct 도토리묵(Dotorimuk; acorn jelly). I'm sorry. Is my mistake. Thank you for reading. (I do not know English well. These statements were translated into Google Translator. And it was modified.)

Sorry about that -- the other three in the cat were by AB and I was a little too broad with the cut and paste. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Easily fixed. (Although I sometimes wonder: given that I have to fix/revert something messed up on one or another of my 40,000+ files roughly once a day, what's going to happen someday when I'm not here...) - Jmabel ! talk 16:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI I left a new user this message regarding an image of a Tacoma chef/businessman with dubious licensing, if there's anything you want to add. Their username implies that they are probably an employee of his company, Pacific Grill. - Brianhe (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

See this edit to one of your uploads; I use the template heavily and thought you might find it useful, both because it autotranslates and because it transcludes a category for the date when the photo was taken. Nyttend (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I await your response to my response to your complaint about my map uploads. I must admit I don't see how I could have done them otherwise given the upload devices built in questions, and I do assert that both files as I uploaded them were "my work" in the sense that I had modified public domain materials to make them. --Haruo (talk) 07:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Joe, do you have or know where to find any images of the views from SR 520? Especially to the north? I'd like one to illustrate what people would be able to see from the pedestrian belvederes on the new bridge. Thanks! - Brianhe (talk) 08:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you know why there's no pictures of the Bardahl sign? Are there copyright problems? Even as a logo it probably doesn't meet the threshold of originality. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

No good reason. I guess no one's uploaded one. Certainly not a copyright issue, and for trademarks just mark it with {{trademark}}. - Jmabel ! talk 00:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

I also object to the name of the file, which I do not believe represents the data in the graphic. Ipso facto from the data, it is absurd to conclude that anyone is actually carrying out genocide against whites.

Quite possibly nothing copyrightable there: it may be all so simple as to be ineligible. But if all the colors are straight from the book, then it could possibly be problematic. And I certainly agree about the contentious name. Is there any reason you wrote to me rather than nominate it for deletion? - Jmabel ! talk 14:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, am much more familiar with deletion templates in en.wikipedia than commons. Next time I'll figure out how to do that! Peaceray (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Though, that change appears to introduce 1 new jshint issue -- the page's status is now having warnings. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.

To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!

Just wanted to say thanks for setting up all these categories. I think they'll be really helpful. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. I got tired of the hodgepodge and especially of the nonsense of extant buildings often being classified hierarchically as "former buildings" just because they were (for example) former post offices. - Jmabel ! talk 04:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Jmabel. I wonder if you would mind sending me an email. There's something I'd like your advice on. I'm not able to use the email function (something about Yahoo! emails not working with it), but I can reply if you send one. Thanks in advance. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

You don't have "email this user" on your user page, so I can't do that. I'm guessing you have to add your email address to your preferences, or some such. You can find my email address elsewhere online easily enough, but I have no problem stating it here: jmabel AT speakeasy DOT org. - Jmabel ! talk 15:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

While I created the image, using Word and Photoshop, it is based on ideas taken from the cited source. On review, and after re-reading the original article from 1961, it is clear that the diagram is similar, but not identical to a diagram used in the article. I think that the safest route would be to withdraw my request to reinstate the image. Thank-you for trying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BronHiggs (talk • contribs) 06:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Joe, as far as I know all government employee photographs should be public domain. However it appears that the Vienna Embassy photos on Flickr are all tagged "no derivatives". I wanted to pull one from this album but the flickr2commons tool won't do it, probably because of this. Any idea why they are doing this, and do we maybe have a formal way of requesting that they re-tag their albums? - Brianhe (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Brianhe: They are PD if they are taken by a government employee in the performance of his or her duties. It's not absolutely clear to me that is the case; for example, what if the photo was taken by a volunteer? You might want to contact them and ask for that to be clarified. - Jmabel ! talk 21:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I can do that, then send in the official response for OTRS documentation, I suppose. It seems unlikely the whole photostream is on somebody's off time though. Brianhe (talk) 00:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Since you are an administrator with very extensive experience at Commons and have created, three days ago, Category:Historical Park Blizna, I would like to consult with you regarding the subject mentioned in the above header.

Furthermore, Category:Subcarpathian Voivodeship has 30 subcategories, all of which contain the term "Subcarpathian", a term that also appears in a substantial number of files.

Thus, before embarking on any further changes which would have to be fairly extensive, I would like to consult with you whether it would be best to leave well enough alone and move Category:Blizna (Podkarpackie Voivodeship) to Category:Blizna (Subcarpathian Voivodeship) as well as adjust the categories to that form in your creation and the two files, or whether to start numerous moves to bring the name "Subcarpathian" in compliance/harmony with the form used in Wikipedia, "Podkarpackie".

@Roman Spinner: I personally would go with "Subcarpathian Voivodeship". Both Subcarpathian and Voivodeship are English words well understood by any English-speaker with an interest in the region. Similarly, unless there is a strong reason not to consider a powiat a "county", I'd go with the English there as well. (By "strong reason" I mean something like that we don't translate the Spanish comarca as "county" even though they are largely analogous, because they Spanish has a distinct word condado that specifically refers to an area historically ruled by a count, and so "county" for comarca is definitely not appropriate.) Certainly we use "county" for the Romanian judeţ.

I have very little Polish, so I can't really judge the Polish-language issues here, but certainly Commons policy is for category names to use any common English words when they exist. - Jmabel ! talk 22:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, all of them are entirely within the state. Or at least the reservoirs proper ... as can be seen here, some of the Croton Watershed (the smaller one closer to the city) overlaps into Connecticut.

As I was creating and filling the category, I realized I was glad for that. Years ago there was a proposal, if more Catskill reservoirs could not be built, to work things out with Connecticut and Massachusetts (by land swap, yet!) and dam the Housatonic along its upper reaches to create adequate capacity. Instead, damming the branches of the Delaware and Schoharie Creek became technically and politically feasible, and that's where we are today. Daniel Case (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Jmabel, a new year is like a blank book, the pen is in your hands. It is your chance to write a beautiful story for yourself! Happy New Year 2017. Hedwig in Washington(mail?) 18:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel, I picked your name from the Commons Help Desk. I'm an admin on enwiki. Images and related copyrights aren't my area of strong knowledge. I happened upon File:Pro-jallikattu-protest-tn-2017.jpg, which was labeled as the user's own work, but the middle image is identical to this Financial Express image, which leads me to believe it needs some scrutiny from the community. Sorry to dump this in your lap, and any edification you can provide me would be appreciated. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Hi, Jmabel, I reponded to your post on my talk page, don't know if you saw it. I also wanted to let you know that I intend to make another change to the category Anglican Bishops. I see that there are separate sub-cats for various provinces of the Anglican Communion, including Bishops of the Episcopal Church, Bishops of the Church of Ireland, Bishops of the Church of Uganda, etc. etc., BUT, there is not a sub-cat Bishops of the Church of England. I intend to create that category, and populate it with the various diocesan bishop subcats. Then, I want to move the subcat "suffragan bishops in England" (which is the only entry in the cat Anglican bishops by diocese in England) into the newly created cat and delete its old parent, Anglican bishops by diocese in England, which would then be empty (and which is titled ambiguously anyway, since it never contained all of the Anglican bishops in England). The reason for this is that "suffragan bishops" should be a subcat of "Bishops". Hope that makes sense, let me know if otherwise. Drbones1950 (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Frist of all:Thank you very mutch by your amability.Sadly and in adiction I have to say that I loose the works...Even the four that you see is corresponding to others uploads made by others users made more recently.In fact if you go to the pages of the files, you can note that the names of the pages is not correspondig with the names of the primary files, like one kind of redirecting. In any way I will be gratefull to recover this works or at least the most part of them, if you believe is possible that. I promisess to be more carefull when I made my uploads in the future.Honestly:I thinked that I´s could served to ilustrate the culture and the social rroyalty of my country. Thank you very mutch aggain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicond (talk • contribs) 17:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I assume the relevant list is the red links at Commons:Deletion requests/Vicond's uploads. Probably the simplest thing would be for me to undelete about a dozen at a time for you to download to your machine. It would be greatly appreciated if when I do that, you could do the downloads within 24 hours, then get back to me to let me know to re-delete those and go on to the next batch. Would that work for you? (Y si eres, como sospecho, hispanohablante, puedes escribirme in español, si sea más fácil.) - Jmabel ! talk 18:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

As we mentioned last month, the Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Each month, we are sending overviews of these updates to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a overview of the updates that have been sent since our message last month:

This is the first of three conversations, and it will run between now and April 15. The purpose of cycle 1 is to discuss the future of the movement and generate major themes around potential directions. What do we want to build or achieve together over the next 15 years?

We welcome you, as we create this conversation together, and look forward to broad and diverse participation from all parts of our movement.

Joe, can you think of a reason why a paid job like this would exist? Why would somebody want their specific Commons image injected into an ENWP article? - Bri (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Probably increases your cred as a photographer (there's no doubt that the inclusion of my photos in so many Wikipedia article has done so for me). More directly fungible if your images are watermarked, I guess. I personally have never particularly capitalized on this to get paid photography work, but it was really nice to be honored by Docomomo WeWa, and it's certainly given me far better access to photograph things that would not always allow someone to come in and do so. And as I'm sure can be easily verified, I've been very reticent about adding my photos to articles that already have images unless mine are clear improvements; if in doubt, I tend to mention the availability of my photos on the relevant talk page and more often than not leave it to someone else to make the call.

But if they get one account to insert a bunch of the another account's images in articles, that's going to come off as a meatpuppet if anyone ever spots it, especially since it sounds like they want someone to do paid editing and not disclose that. - Jmabel ! talk 20:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I have watchlisted a few of the dice-related articles and will let you know if I see anything funky. - Bri (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Would you care to add a license or disclaimer to your image corrections? That would help downstream use. When I crop or fix a PD image, I tend to use {{cc0}} for my corrections. Up to you, of course. — hike395 (talk) 03:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure. I just figured what I did was to minor to change the PD status, but OK. - Jmabel ! talk 04:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the quick response regarding the "Copyright help regarding Campoalto.png" enquiry.

I don't understand why you had issues getting in the website http://campoalto.edu.py/. It is the official site of the Campoalto School, where you can find the logo I wanted to use for an article related to the school. Nevertheless, as the article will be written in Spanish, I will look to the rules related to that language. Thanks again! Cheers! Regopy Regopy (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The Wikimedia movement strategy core team and working groups have completed reviewing the more than 1800 thematic statements we received from the first discussion. They have identified 5 themes that were consistent across all the conversations - each with their own set of sub-themes. These are not the final themes, just an initial working draft of the core concepts.

You are invited to join the online and offline discussions taking place on these 5 themes. This round of discussions will take place between now and June 12th. You can discuss as many as you like; we ask you to participate in the ones that are most (or least) important to you.

Here are the five themes, each has a page on Meta-Wiki with more information about the theme and how to participate in that theme's discussion:

Thank you for the duplicate template for the images of the coronation. Duplicate_images_in_the_Commons I have inserted the template in the lesser quality image. Do I need to go and change all the pages that link to the deprecated image or is this something that is taken up by the editors interested in those pages. I am leery of editing pages that are not in my native languages. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ouvrard (talk • contribs) 20:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

When it's resolved, either name of the deleted image becomes a redirect to the image we keep, or CommonsDelinker will substitute all references in other Wikipedias. Either way, all articles will automatically show the correct image. - Jmabel ! talk 20:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Ray Hill.jpg has contradictory information -- it says it was uploaded with permission of the subject but it also says the uploader has released it. I'm not sure what tag to use, or if I should just tag it for deletion? - Bri (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bri: Have you asked the uploader for clarification? They did turn on the email feature. If the uploader is the photographer (as claimed), there is nothing wrong (though maybe redundant) with indicating that you had the subject's permission. The subject would have only personality rights, not copyright. But I'm guessing (from the small resolution and from the fact that this person has no other contributions on Commons) that the uploader is not the photographer. So you could go straight to nominating for deletion, or you could first discuss with the uploader. - Jmabel ! talk 22:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

RE File:Rodin Museum - Joy of Museums - The Secret 2.jpg Hi, This is now fixed, In the description I added: "Rodin Museum in Philadelphia". Sorry, I am trying to learn how to use the Talk Function? Not sure if this is how I respond? Thanks for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by GordonMakryllos (talk • contribs) 10:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

The disputed work lacked some evidences to fulfill Angloa's FOP law. Do you really believe that it's not a copyright issue? See this and this. --Mhhosseintalk 12:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

A requirement to name the author is the same requirement as the completely acceptable attribution requirement of CC-BY. And a requirement to "respect the work" seems very analogous to personality rights. Yes, we would need the photographer's permission, I did not realize that the uploader was not the photographer, that hadn't been stated. - Jmabel ! talk 14:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any rationale for the undos of my noms by User:Dienthoaiquangcao37 like [2] can you shed any light Joe? Or maybe they will respond here... Bri (talk) 05:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Bri: Absolutely no rationale, and given that the DR is still in progress, this is vandalism. It appears to be a new account, and half of its edits seem to be reversions of you. If I were in your shoes I would first contact the user on their user talk page and ask what is going on here, and unless you get a much better answer than I'd expect, you should take this to COM:AN/U. - Jmabel ! talk 05:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again. this was the result. Now I'll go back and un-revert all my noms, I guess *sigh* Bri (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Hi Jmabel, nice to meet you again here. How's it going? As for the difference between our search results, I was searching for "undelete", while you searched for "undeletion". SebastianHelm (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Despite the name, Oriental Orthodox is not a subset in any way of something wider that would be called "Orthodoxy". The Oriental Orthodox separated around the 5th century from what is now Catholic and Orthodox Christianity, and are a different faith. When used alone, as is most often the case in Commons, the term "Orthodox" is synonymous with "Eastern Orthodox". I try to correct it any time I find wrongful or duplicate categories, but categories are mostly coherent that way.

You would not confuse Jewish Orthodox or orthodox Marxists with Orthodox Christianity just because they have "orthodox" in their name. PlaceClichy 07:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm writing you as one of the most active Commons users right now. Since a while now, the idea of a dedicated Commons conference has been floating around. But since the last Wikimania concrete steps have been taken to actually make it happen next year. If you're interested in participation or maybe willing to help organize the first ever Commons Conference, I invite you to check out the project page and leave your comments; or just show your support for the idea, by signing up.

I'm trying to order the photos about sports. There are many photos in the main category and i'm creating new categories when it´s necesary, but sometimes I fail, sorry about that. Vanbasten 23 (talk) 06:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my spelling here! However, I do not understand your simultaneous "correction" of an exterior link. After your change, following the link yielded a 404 error (for me; I'm using Firefox). I changed back, and now all works well again (for me). Does the link work now, for you? JoergenB (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@JoergenB: My apologies! When I searched for "commer" with my browser, I noticed that the search bar just said "ommer", but didn't think about where the stray "c" might have gone! - Jmabel ! talk 21:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

OK. Glad do have helped you solve one mystery − and you did the same for me. JoergenB (talk) 10:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jmabel, I come quickly here to say thanks for not loosing your temper about the photo which has missing proof. I see that I will not get around to send a written statement that I am the only copyright holder. But it is so depressing to do that because I have done that already on 17 August with other photos, which had been tagged and got no answer so far... I admit that my temperature rose up again, because except me, no one has the copyright for this new photo. I am new to all this here and I am convinced I do it wrong also the next time. I just do not understand how to do it - with or without Wizard. I would like to upload now a book cover from 1964 and a DVD cover fortwo another pages I am working at. Thank you again for your patience. Best to you Laramie1960 (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Laramie1960: There is nothing here to lose temper over. This happens often. Rights issues are tricky, and Commons is more than typically careful about them.

No answer in 3-1/2 weeks is not good, but not uncommon: a small number of people handle the OTRS requests, and they often have a backlog of weeks, especially for things that they can't simply resolve in a minute or so.

Again: on the image in question, you say, "I just do not understand how to do it", have you read Commons:OTRS? Is there something in particular there that you don't understand? I can answer specific questions, but "I don't understand" is much to general for anyone to answer.

Unless you are the copyright holder for the book cover & DVD cover in question, or have verifiable permission from that person, or the designs are so simple as not to be eligible for copyright, then please don't upload them to Commons. It is quite possible that you can upload them directly to the English-language Wikipedia (etc.) on a fair-use basis if there are articles about them that need them as illustrations. You might get a look at en:Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_non-free_content_guide and en:Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images; all of this applies to the English-language Wikipedia; no non-free images are acceptable on Commons.

Hello Jmabel, I am sorry to come only now to thank you for your answer and helpful suggestions. I admit I had completely forgotten to answer you because for days I was concerned about getting it right with that photo. I followed your suggestion and wrote to OTRS. I did at first not understand how to do it, and you may know how it is when something seems alien ;-) They were very nice ant OTRS and helpful and the photo can now stay where it is. I am very happy about that. Also I am getting now answer to that first Ticket. I am afraid that for the photo in the article, that French newspaper will never answer me. I called Le Figaro today and had to talk on the answering machine! I wrote then a message. I gave them all the necessary information, because I have that article myself. It is just that I would have loved to add that photo, showing the author in her garden, writing. Thanks again for your help, kind Regards Laramie1960 (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Concerning this discussion of the photo that the questioner claimed to have taken with himself in it: Yes, you're quite right. I find it not impossible, but quite unlikely that they took it themself with a shutter delay. And I apologize

for my delay here. I don't visit the Commons that often and only just now got notification of your reply, too late for me to answer you in the now-archived discussion.

File:Coffee Melts Bars by Rabbi Fishel Jacobs.jpg was uploaded by a person claiming to be the author of the book. However the Amazon preview shows that it was outsourced to "Pradeep Cover Design". What should be done? I know that book covers don't usually belong here. The same person uploaded two other book covers claiming authorship which seems ... unlikely for one of them. Bri (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

If it had prior publication that was not under the same free license (or where we can't verify), they need to go through OTRSeven if it is the same person. Assuming the book is self-published, imaginably there could still be an issue if the rights weren't correctly signed over by the cover designer (remember that publishers do usually get copyrights signed over), but I think the OTRS people would follow up on what they need if they think there is doubt about that. - Jmabel ! talk 23:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I think I like to award you with this barnstar. You put me in the right direction, even if I was at first totally annoyed that the photo was rejected. I learned a lot about copyrights. Thanks again, best to you. Laramie1960 (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Joe! I'm helping a newer editor on ENWP with her third DYK and wanted to see if we could find a PD image for the article. I think I found an eligible one here. If you look at the front and the back of the postcard there's no copyright date. Due to the birth date of the animal (1958) and the owner (1924), I don't think it's possible it was taken as late as 1978. Do you think it would pass muster as a PD upload to Commons on this basis alone? We could do more research to see if we can find when the horse had sired not more than 13 champions, but that may be a bridge too far for the DYK. It died in 1985 so I could also see if Dukane Press ever applied to the LOC for copyright after issuance of the postcard. Bri (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. In the meantime I've scanned the Catalog of Copyright Entries for nearly every year between 1967 and 1978, and Dukane Press never registered a single thing. Bri (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Your images of an alleged "1959 Plymouth Special Deluxe Convertible," are if anything of a 1949 Plymouth Special Deluxe Convertible. I just thought you should know that. ----DanTD (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

You're right. I misread the note attached to the dash (which fortunately I photographed and could check). - Jmabel ! talk 15:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Translation. Do you want to help out translating messages about Structured Data on Commons from English to your own language? Sign up on the translators page.

The documentation and info pages about Structured Data on Commons have received a thorough update, in order to get them ready for all the upcoming work. Obsolete pages were archived. There are undoubtedly still a lot of omissions and bits that are unclear. You can help by editing boldly, and by leaving feedback and tips on the talk pages.

Structured Data on Commons was presented at Wikimania 2017 in Montréal for a packed room. First design sketches for search functionality were discussed during a breakout session. Read the Etherpad reports of the presentation and the breakout session.

Sandra Fauconnier, Amanda Bittaker and Ramsey Isler from the Structured Commons team will be at WikidataCon. Sandra presents Structured Commons there (with a focus on fruitful collaboration between the Wikidata and Commons communities). If you attend the conference, don't hesitate to say hi and have a chat with us! (phabricator task T176858)

Team updates

The Structured Commons team at Wikimania 2017

Two new people have been hired for the Structured Data on Commons team. We are now complete! :-)

Ramsey Isler is the new Product Manager of the Multimedia team.

Pamela Drouin was hired as User Interface Designer. She works at the Multimedia team as well, and her work will focus on the Structured Commons project.

Partners and allies

We are still welcoming (more) staff from GLAMs (Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums) to become part of our long-term focus group (phabricator task T174134). You will be kept in the loop of the project, and receive regular small surveys and requests for feedback. Get in touch with Sandra if you're interested - your input in helping to shape this project is highly valued!

Jonathan Morgan and Niharika Ved have held interviews with various GLAM staff about their batch upload workflows and will finish and report on these in this quarter. (phabricator task T159495)

At this moment, there is also an online survey for GLAM staff, Wikimedians in Residence, and GLAM volunteers who upload media collections to Wikimedia Commons. The results will be used to understand how we can improve this experience. (phabricator task T175188)

I think you missed that all those photos are not the own work of uploader as they appear on other websites, or contain derivative works. I am nominating. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Feel free. I was only addressing the question raised, that they were self-promotional. The person who posted didn't say anything about them being possible copyright violations. - Jmabel ! talk 17:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jmabel. There was a long discussion about this category and the consensus was that if there were more than ten files in the 'Taken on' category that it is desirable to place files in a country specific category to reduce the size of the specific day category, But this seems to be a guide line and not a community standard now, so I would say either way is correct. Kolforn (talk) 09:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Hi ! OK I will did it with the pictures also. With the maps I must already do it, except if, as Bourrichon, the first uploader accept the improving of his document. Wishes, --Julieta39 (talk) 10:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

someone has asked me for copyright info even though the image is not complex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uby8776 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Uby8776: I have no idea what image you are talking about here. Please give me some context. - Jmabel ! talk 17:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Presumably the no-source tag on File:Inceldom_flag.png. Uby8776, even if the design is not copyrightable (which depends on the country of origin), it‘s important for users to know where it came from. If you created the image yourself you can say so, but it would still be good to link to somewhere it‘s identified or shown in use as something other than a personal, proposed or fictional flag (of which there are plenty here).—Odysseus1479 (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

A multi-licensed image on Wikimedia Commons, with a custom {{EthnologyItemMHNT}} Information template. Do you also know media files on Commons that will be interesting or challenging to model with structured data? Add them to the Interesting Commons files page.

Presentation about Structured Commons and Wikidata, at WikimediaCon in Berlin.

Sandra presented the plans for Structured Commons during WikidataCon in Berlin, on October 29. The presentation focused on collaboration between the Wikidata and Commons communities. You can see the full video here.

Partners and allies

We are still welcoming (more) staff from GLAMs (Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums) to become part of our long-term focus group (phabricator task T174134). You will be kept in the loop of the project, and receive regular small surveys and requests for feedback. Get in touch with Sandra if you're interested - your input in helping to shape this project is highly valued!

Research

Research findings from interviews and surveys of GLAM project participants are being published to the research page. Check back over the next few weeks as additional details (notes, quotes, charts, blog posts, and slide decks) will be added to or linked from that page.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Hey, Joe, in your translation attempt you’ve added a pair of braces too much (after English part) which broke the LangSwitch template. I’ve fixed it together with a spurious bracket after the web link. More important it would be to update the upper part for Spanish. Move it above the comment sign after the German part and fix it, for Spanish there has seemingly only renombrador{{gender:{{BASEPAGENAME}}||a}} de archivos to be replaced (I actually do not get why there is some color styling). — Speravir– 17:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, in regards to this deletion request, I will admit right upfront that I'm not particularly familiar with the multitude of policies and guidelines that govern image files here on Commons. With respect to that image, and now five others (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) I've found just like it, (all from the same Flikr account), I do know that;
they are labeled as "RCMP... ", some of them display the RCMP's official logo, their doesn't appear to be any permission from the RCMP to use the images, and lastly, but most importantly, these are not RCMP officers, they aren't even real people, they are toys. Dolls. 12-inch action figures. I'm not necessarily contesting their inclusion on any wiki-media, (I don't consider myself a deletionist). If there are no rights violations and they can be retained, then at the very least, they should be renamed. So what I'd like to ask is, how can I determine if they are permissible? And if so, how do I go about renaming them? Again, I not familiar with Commons, and how similar or different it is from Wikipedia. Any assistance you can offer here would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Thewolfchild (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Changing the descriptions is probably more important than changing the names. You can do that exactly as readily as anyone else.

To request renames, I suggest {{Requested move}}{{Rename}} (wrong wiki)!, and remember to use the "reason" parameter.

These may yet be deleted. Images of toys are often (but not always) deemed to be copyright violations.

Would you mind if I renamed this section with a better header than "Question"? That's pretty vague. - Jmabel ! talk 06:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look at the descriptions.

What do I do about the deletion request, if I want to do a rename? Should I wait to see if they're deleted? (as you say they might be), Wait for that request to close? Go ahead with the rename request immediately?

(also, is ((Requested move)) mandatory? on WP we can just go ahead and move articles if it's uncontroversial)

Renaming is much more of a big deal on Commons than on WP, because of the importance of file name stability. Again, it's usually much more important to have the description accurate than the filename, which is rather arbitrary. - Jmabel ! talk 18:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

They're definitely toys, either "One Sixth Warriors" or another brand of these types of realistic-looking action dolls.

You can rename this to anything you like, it's you're talk page. (I hope you don't mind that I fixed the 'ping' template, tht 'error' notice was distracting) Thank you for the reply and the assistance. I can't believe that pictures of toys labeled as a specific police service's SWAT team were able to make it into these projects, actually get posted to articles and go undetected this long. I'm hope we can get this resolved soon. Thanks again Thewolfchild (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hold up - please disregard my previous comments/question. The image has since been deleted so it looks like this whole situation is getting resolved. But thanks again. Thewolfchild (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)